Veteran Journalist Ejected from Tribunal Hearing Over Article

An experienced journalist has been ejected from a tribunal hearing in New Zealand, igniting questions about media access and freedom of expression. Jenny Ruth, a prominent business journalist, was barred from the Human Rights Review Tribunal while covering a case involving a dispute between the organisers of the Wellington Pride Festival and a lesbian group known as Lesbian Action for Visibility Aotearoa (Lava).

The tribunal’s decision to exclude Ruth follows her publication of details related to the case on her Substack platform. In her article, she quoted expert testimony from a witness representing Wellington Pride. The tribunal accused Ruth of “wilfully and without lawful excuse” disobeying a tribunal order, leading to her removal from the hearing. Other media representatives have been permitted to cover the proceedings, raising concerns about inconsistent application of rules regarding media access.

Background on the Dispute

The ongoing case revolves around the cancellation of a stall that Lava was set to operate at a Pride gala event in 2021. The Wellington Pride organisers made the decision due to Lava’s expressed anti-trans views, which they felt were inconsistent with the inclusive values of the Pride movement. This controversy highlights the complexities surrounding freedom of speech, especially within advocacy groups focused on LGBTQ+ rights.

Ruth’s ejection has drawn attention to the potential implications for journalistic integrity and transparency in legal proceedings. Critics argue that excluding a journalist, particularly one who has a track record of covering significant issues, undermines public interest in the case.

The Implications for Media Freedom

The incident raises pertinent questions about the balance between protecting tribunal integrity and ensuring a free press. Legal experts suggest that while courts have the authority to maintain order, arbitrary exclusions based on reporting may set a troubling precedent for journalists covering sensitive issues.

In light of the tribunal’s actions, various media organisations have expressed concern about the implications for journalistic freedom in New Zealand. The ability to report on legal matters without fear of retribution is a fundamental aspect of a democratic society. As the case unfolds, many will be watching closely to see how the tribunal and the involved parties navigate this complex issue.

Ruth’s situation serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by journalists in the pursuit of truth, particularly in areas where social issues intersect with legal proceedings. The outcome of this case could have lasting effects on media relations with authorities and the broader implications for the rights of journalists in New Zealand.